News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla China exports 50,644 vehicles in January, up sharply YoY
The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
Tesla China exported 50,644 vehicles in January, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).
This marks a notable increase both year-on-year and month-on-month for the American EV maker’s Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y. The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
The CPCA’s national passenger car market analysis report indicated that total New Energy Vehicle exports reached 286,000 units in January, up 103.6% from a year earlier. Battery electric vehicles accounted for 65% of those exports.
Within that total, Tesla China shipped 50,644 vehicles overseas. By comparison, exports of Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y units totaled 29,535 units in January last year and just 3,328 units in December.
This suggests that Tesla China’s January 2026 exports were roughly 1.7 times higher than the same month a year ago and more than 15 times higher than December’s level, as noted in a TechWeb report.
BYD still led the January 2026 export rankings with 96,859 new energy passenger vehicles shipped overseas, though it should be noted that the automaker operates at least nine major production facilities in China, far outnumering Tesla. Overall, BYD’s factories in China have a domestic production capacity for up to 5.82 million units annually as of 2024.
Tesla China followed in second place, ahead of Geely, Chery, Leapmotor, SAIC Motor, and SAIC-GM-Wuling, each of which exported significant volumes during the month. Overall, new energy vehicles accounted for nearly half of China’s total passenger vehicle exports in January, hinting at strong overseas demand for electric cars produced in the country.
China remains one of Tesla China’s most important markets. Despite mostly competing with just two vehicles, both of which are premium priced, Tesla China is still proving quite competitive in the domestic electric vehicle market.
News
Tesla adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Tesla has added a new feature to its Navigation and Supercharger Map in preparation for a new vehicle to hit the road: the Semi.
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Semi will enter high-volume production this year
One of those changes has been the newly-released information regarding trim levels, as well as reports that Tesla has started to reach out to customers regarding pricing information for those trims.
Now, Tesla has made an additional bit of information available to the public in the form of locations of Megachargers, the infrastructure that will be responsible for charging the Semi and other all-electric Class 8 vehicles that hit the road.
Tesla made the announcement on the social media platform X:
We put Semi Megachargers on the map
→ https://t.co/Jb6p7OPXMi pic.twitter.com/stwYwtDVSB
— Tesla Semi (@tesla_semi) February 10, 2026
Although it is a minor development, it is a major indication that Tesla is preparing for the Semi to head toward mass production, something the company has been hinting at for several years.
Nevertheless, this, along with the other information that was released this week, points toward a significant stride in Tesla’s progress in the Semi project.
Now that the company has also worked toward completion of the dedicated manufacturing plant in Sparks, Nevada, there are more signs than ever that the vehicle is finally ready to be built and delivered to customers outside of the pilot program that has been in operation for several years.
For now, the Megachargers are going to be situated on the West Coast, with a heavy emphasis on routes like I-5 and I-10. This strategy prioritizes major highways and logistics hubs where freight traffic is heaviest, ensuring coverage for both cross-country and regional hauls.
California and Texas are slated to have the most initially, with 17 and 19 sites, respectively. As the program continues to grow, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Washington, New York, and Nevada will have Megacharger locations as well.
For now, the Megachargers are available in Lathrop, California, and Sparks, Nevada, both of which have ties to Tesla. The former is the location of the Megafactory, and Sparks is where both the Tesla Gigafactory and Semifactory are located.
Elon Musk
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
“Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session,” Cramer said.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) got its latest synopsis from Wall Street analyst Jim Cramer, who finally realized something that many fans of the company have known all along: it’s not a car company. Instead, it’s a robotics company.
In a recent note that was released after Tesla reported Earnings in late January, Cramer seemed to recognize that the underwhelming financials and overall performance of the automotive division were not representative of the current state of affairs.
Instead, we’re seeing a company transition itself away from its early identity, essentially evolving like a caterpillar into a butterfly.
The narrative of the Earnings Call was simple: We’re not a car company, at least not from a birds-eye view. We’re an AI and Robotics company, and we are transitioning to this quicker than most people realize.
Tesla stock gets another analysis from Jim Cramer, and investors will like it
Tesla’s Q4 Earnings Call featured plenty of analysis from CEO Elon Musk and others, and some of the more minor details of the call were even indicative of a company that is moving toward AI instead of its cars. For example, the Model S and Model X will be no more after Q2, as Musk said that they serve relatively no purpose for the future.
Instead, Tesla is shifting its focus to the vehicles catered for autonomy and its Robotaxi and self-driving efforts.
Cramer recognizes this:
“…we got results from Tesla, which actually beat numbers, but nobody cares about the numbers here, as electric vehicles are the past. And according to CEO Elon Musk, the future of this company comes down to Cybercabs and humanoid robots. Stock fell more than 3% the next day. That may be because their capital expenditures budget was higher than expected, or maybe people wanted more details from the new businesses. At this point, I think Musk acolytes might be more excited about SpaceX, which is planning to come public later this year.”
He continued, highlighting the company’s true transition away from vehicles to its Cybercab, Optimus, and AI ambitions:
“I know it’s hard to believe how quickly this market can change its attitude. Last night, I heard a disastrous car company speak. Turns out it’s actually a robotics and Cybercab company, and I want to buy, buy, buy. Yes, Tesla’s the paper that turned into scissors in one session. I didn’t like it as a car company. Boy, I love it as a Cybercab and humanoid robot juggernaut. Call me a buyer and give me five robots while I’m at it.”
Cramer’s narrative seems to fit that of the most bullish Tesla investors. Anyone who is labeled a “permabull” has been echoing a similar sentiment over the past several years: Tesla is not a car company any longer.
Instead, the true focus is on the future and the potential that AI and Robotics bring to the company. It is truly difficult to put Tesla shares in the same group as companies like Ford, General Motors, and others.
Tesla shares are down less than half a percent at the time of publishing, trading at $423.69.
Tesla China exports 50,644 vehicles in January, up sharply YoY
Tesla adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
